The Social Quacks On Revolution. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Economic Determinant.

In his masterly essay, "Causes of Belief in God," Paul Lafargue shows how the capitalist method of production divides society into superstitious capitalists and materialist workers. The buying and selling of stocks and shares are to the average capitalist a gamble. He knows little or nothing of the actual concerns. He often has friends who have lost heavily in dealings on the Stock Exchange. He receives rude shocks occasionally through rumours affecting his own investments, and not being able to control the conditions that bring success or failure, regards the whole question as one of chance.

The Worker's Earthly Wisdom.

The worker, on the other hand, is concerned with the material processes of production and distribution. He sees in these processes nothing marvellous because they are the result of the combined efforts of his fellow workers, and he himself takes a hand. Powerful engines, and the terrific force generated by them, have no terrors for the worker, because he controls them. His share of the industrial process, wages, is not subject to chance. They do not fluctuate from a standard of exquisite luxury to one of poverty; he remains always poor, not expecting, or even dreaming of, obtaining a fancy price for his labour-power. When the prices of necessaries are raised to him, he blames those who raise them. When his wages are reduced, his hours of labour prolonged, or the speed of the machine increased against him, he does not whine that it is the will of God. Neither does he try to explain such misfortunes by economic law. To him it is a personal matter and the capitalist is the person responsible; he therefore takes organised action against him.

The Chance for Dinkey-Doo.

The worker does not look for abstruse explanations of the economic disturbances that hurt him : he blames the capitalist. But the latter, sometimes hit by the same disturbances, blames his luck and tries to ward off disaster with mascots. He believes in lucky days, fortune tellers, and spiritualist revelations. When some mad professor of physical science predicts the end of the world because one side of the solar system seems overweighted with planets, the big luminaries of the scientific world rush into print to re-assure the wealthy idlers, who are in the main, just as void of scientific knowledge as the workers. The professors who ridiculed the idea knew they were safe in this case, because they alone would have been able to say "we told you so."

The Propheteers' Harvest.

When financial or trade crises ruin many capitalists, economic and social quacks get busy explaining causes; prophesying rapid recovery, and generally offering advice and administering comfort to those who are threatened with disaster. But it is when industrial disputes develop and spread from one occupation to another, when waves of discontent surge backwards and forwards, and the structure of civilisation seems threatened, when Bolshevism is triumphant in Russia and all middle Europe seems affected by it, then it is that the experts get busy explaining, warning, and advising their capitalist masters. Revolution is hinted at, prophesied for the near future, already here, and utterly discredited by politicians, economists, and social reformers with equally plausible arguments.

The Prime Minister says that "a revolutionary spirit in the air." In his usual self-advertising style he proclaims his ability to turn it. "It is simply the flood," he goes on, "the spade in the stream. What it wants is direction." Mr. Bonar Law said : "I am not afraid of the revolutionary spirit; revolution and the danger of it will come only if the social and economic conditions become intolerable." And of course they are not intolerable for these two gentlemen and the class they represent.

After them comes Mr. McCurdy, M.P., who says : "Not one man in a hundred of our strikers knows anything, or cares to know anything, about the philosophy of anarchism or syndicalism. He is looking for a way out of his own personal troubles—high prices, the irritation of profiteering, the limited share he gets of the comforts of life."

This is pleasant reading for the average capitalist, who wants to believe that the workers still lack the knowledge and intelligence necessary for combination against him on sound lines. But in his further remarks Mr. McCurdy goes far to prove that conditions are forcing the workers to become revolutionary.

"Higher wages," he says,"lead to higher prices, unless there is increased production." But, like all the advocates of greater production, he means greater production per worker, who cannot, therefore, get his better conditions, because prices will not fall until demand has contracted, which means increased unemployment and lower wages to correspond with the reduced prices.

The worker is never in a position ta take advantage of the redactions in price. Whether his wages are high or low, prices always soar at a level that prevents him attaining to a comfortable standard of living. Resolutions demanding drastic government action against the "profiteer" have no effect because profiteers are capitalists just the same as other capitalists not "lucky" enough to be profiteers, but hoping to be so shortly. The workers are baffled whatever action they take along the lines they have so far been accustomed to follow. But Socialism is at their elbows—will they pause and examine it ?

Another mistake that Mr. McCurdy makes is in thinking that Syndicalism or Anarchism are really dangers to the stability of capitalist society. Their real danger is to the working class, which, in so far as it heeds these things, neglects the obvious course of gaining control of the political machine, and lays itself open to militant suppression by the Government—a form of suppression the ruling class have proved themselves only too ready to adopt, many of them, without doubt, considering it necessary that society should be periodically purged of its revolutionary elements. And what more favourable opportunity could present itself than large numbers of workers imbued with the belief that they can carry through the Revolution by means of strikes or looting, or by physical force ?

It was this belief on the part of the Parisian workers that gave Theirs and the French capitalists the opportunity to massacre the communards; and that massacre will no doubt be repeated on a more colossal scale in Russia unless the Bolshevik leaders are wise enough to effect a compromise before the full weight of surrounding capitalist forces is hurled against them and their premature revolution.

The economist is an adjunct of the political party and manufactures arguments, principles, and even economic "laws" according to the needs of his party. When he speaks of revolution as the outcome of present working-class discontent he refers to it as a convulsion of society, with nothing to follow but brutal dictatorships or universal chaos. It would not suit capitalist ideas and interests to even admit the possibility of an alternative system of society. Capitalism, in the opinion of capitalists, is the highest expression of social organisation. Consequently the Russian movement and the general unrest, if it means revolution, is the beginning of the end: the annihilation of the human race through the absence of law and order.

In the "Review of Reviews" (Aug. 1919) Mr. J. A. Hobson says that the "scientific Socialist hails this intestinal warfare with a sombre satisfaction as the fulfilment of his law of economic determination." It is far easier to hazard sneering guesses about the emotions of Socialist opponents than it is to pulverise the "law of economic determination." though it matters nothing what the Socialist, or even Hobson, feels about it. if it is a law. Grudgingly he admits that the Socialist is right when he says that the development of capitalist society means the growing antagonism of the working class towards capitalism and all those who seek to maintain it. But his admission matters very little; the fact remains that "human society is out of harmony with its surroundings and must re-adapt itself in order to continue its existence." But to re-adapt itself means, not superficial, but fundamental changes, and Socialism alone contains such fundamental changes.

Mr. Hobson concedes to the Socialist the correctness of his diagnosis, and, therefore, admits the inevitability of the class war. But he asks, "need we succumb to this terrible philosophy ? I think not." And then he tries to comfort his friends the capitalists by assuring them that "the vast majority of the workers mistrusts all conscious formulation of aims and policy except for short range and concrete objects." These "concrete objects are, a voice in workshop control, security of tenure, a reasonable standard of comfort and leisure. "

But capitalism has always refused these to the workers, except in rare instances when labour-power has been in great demand. Wages must be kept down while industry is carried on for profits, consequently there must be an unemployed army which imposes on the work the competitive struggle for jobs and a reasonable standard of comfort and leisure is an impossibility under the system for all those who sell their energy for wages

Then Mr. Hobson shows how "short range" are capitalist "politics and economics." He is confident "that the great mass of the workers would accept these substantial gains and would not clamour for the destruction of the wage system" But he realises that "no present settlement on these, or any, lines would have permanency"—another admission that must give "sombre satisfaction to the scientific Socialist." 

Politicians and economists alike, with all efforts to bring comfort and assurance to their friends the capitalists, cannot conceal the pessimism they feel. They rack their brains for rough and ready arguments that will deceive the workers and bolster up a rotten system, carrying it on from day to day. They declare that revolutionary Socialists are small in number and that the mass of the workers are not affected. They indulge in cheap sneers at the founders of modern Socialism, and denounce the workers as the enemies of society when, driven by actual want, they strike for some slight improvement in their conditions. But they cannot explain, scientifically, the growing universal antagonism of the workers towards the ruling class.

There is an element of uncertainty about the growth of the Socialist movement. Not even the Socialist can tell how far the minds of the workers are turned to receive the principles of 
Socialism, or how many, already understanding them, are only waiting a popular movement basis on Socialism. The working-class mind, trained to materialism in industry, quite easily grasps the principles of Socialism when clearly presented. The avowed numbers to-day may be small but it is the soundness of the principles, and the ease with which they can be understood, and the growing realisation by the workers that their accustomed methods achieve nothing, that is driving them to Socialism. The capitalists' fear of the future is a convincing answer upon this point, while no Socialist has any doubt as to the future.

F. Foan

By The Way. (1920)

The By The Way Column from the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The master class and their satellites never weary in their campaign of extolling the "virtues" of practising thrift, increasing production, and diminishing consumption on the part of the workers.

That these things are the inevitable lot of working-class existence, and consequently the majority could not partake of the schemes for saving, even if they would, never seems to dawn upon those engaged in boosting appeals, so far are they removed from the actual facts of life.

On the other hand, while we are engaged in these slavish practices from economic compulsion, our bosses are enjoying themselves at "Victory Balls" or ski-ing at some Swiss resort.

Only a few days ago the National Savings Assembly held a meeting in London, and on this occasion a message from the King was read, from which I cull the following:

  It will be your endeavour to explain and to encourage the reduction of unnecessary consumption, and the increase of production, in order that the whole national standard of living may be improved. . . I am to express the King's hope that both employers and employed will lend their support to increase the number of Savings Associations in the works and factories throughout the realm. —"Daily News," January 17th, 1920.

One of the promoters of the movement, Sir Robert Kindersley, speaking at this meeting admitted the poverty position of the workers, though, of course, quite accidentally, when he said "there were still literally tens of thousands of factories and works throughout the country without a War Savings Association."

How the "national standard of living is to be improved" we are never told, though the phrase is an oft-recurring one. Of course, during the early days of the war, when various bodies of workers were discussing with Lloyd George the questions of dilution, speeding-up of munitions, and so forth, he then suggested that this matter of a "higher standard" should be deferred until the war with Germany was concluded, and it was about this period that we were treated to the Lloyd Georgian slogan—"Audacity Wins." However, it is demonstrably clear it was merely words, words, words.

That such a state of things is seriously contemplated is untrue, and can be easily proven, for even in the Government's wages agreement with the railwaymen provision is made for a reduction of one shilling for every 5 points fall in the cost of living. This, then, is the way not to improve the standard of living.

To those who are continually shouting about the wave of working-class prosperity brought about as the result of the war a study of the conditions under which the workers live, move, and have their being would, indeed, be an eye-opener. In spite of the "fabulous" sums which we receive as wages at the end of the week, we, unlike the members of the idle, parasitic class, are unable to take ourselves to Monte Carlo and other fashionable resorts. No, these "high wages" merely suffice to keep us going just about another week, so with clockwork regularity we present ourselves at the bosses' warehouses and factory gates in order to obtain the wherewithal to exist.

While our masters may gamble at Monte Carlo and elsewhere, we, the working class, are told by some who should know a little about these matters that we are too poor to have a flutter on premium bonds.

In this connection I would quote the following comment on premium bonds which recently appeared in the Monthly Review of the London Joint City and Midland Bank :

  It must not be forgotten that, great as have been the wage-increases of the community, they have, taken as a whole, barely kept pace with the still rising cost of living, and certainly do not yield a large margin for investment such as the advocates of Premium Bonds believe to be possible. 

So once again is our diagnosis of the working-class position confirmed even by the "enemy" himself.

#    #    #    #

In the far-off days before the war, Mr. Lloyd George (speaking of the "boon" he was confering upon those veterans of industry who had been so busily engaged in creating wealth for others to enjoy that at the age of three score years and ten they found the only haven of refuge was the workhouse), delivered himself of the following concerning old-age pensions :

  By this act of justice we have sweetened the bitterest thoughts of the poor and lightened the darkest hours of their existence. That which they most dreaded—old age—is now an anticipation of honourable ease. The workhouse has become the chimney-corner. The spectre has become an angel.

Beautiful swank ! We said at the time that it was mere humbug—a capitalist rate-saving device.

Having given the picture as portrayed by the author, let me give the facts as recited (one account of many) in that organ of Liberalism and Lloyd George, "Reynolds's Newspaper," (December 31st, 1919).

  The pathetic details of the death of two aged sisters who starved in a city of wealth and plenty were related at the inquest at Liverpool on Mary Gray aged 81, widow, and Ann Coyne, aged 74, spinster.
  The women were found lying dead on the floor of their kitchen, and it was stated that they existed on their old age pensions and 7s. subscribed fortnightly by friends. There was no bed. Mary, who was blind, slept on an old armchair. A piece of dried crust was the only food in the house.
  A doctor gave evidence that their clothing was simply rags. Ann evidently had fallen over a tattered rug and lain helpless through weakness, dying of concussion of the brain. Mary died more recently, and had sat in a chair for a day or two without anything to eat. Both were very emaciated.
  The Coroner said it was a horrible thing that in a city like Liverpool these poor old women had died in this manner. " —"Reynolds's," Dec. 21st, 1919.

I can just imagine how these old ladies' "darkest hours were lightened" by the possession of such unbounded Christian generosity in the shape of 15 whole shillings per week. In similar circumstances I would far rather have the "workhouse" than the "chimney corner."

Fellow worker, have you ever thought what your support of capitalist society means to you and your class? It means a life of toil and poverty, and at the end of the journey, when you are no longer useful as a profit-producing machine, the workhouse stares you in the face, or if you should reach the prescribed term of years a grateful country may allow you 10s. a week to commit suicide with. Is it worth fighting for? Think it over. If you desire something better, then come and join us and help to win the World for the Workers.

#    #    #    #

At the time when the results of the Borough Council Elections were made known in November last there was much joy and jubilation because it had come to pass that Labour had captured many seats on the various councils throughout the country. After all, there is little cause for rejoicing, for Capitalism has won again. There is, indeed, much hard spade work yet to be done. It is Tweedledum and Tweedledee. True, according to the various "programmes" of the Labour Party which I have seen, they are going to try and make capitalism more bearable. The feeding of school children and the supply of milk to necessitous mothers, free libraries and mixed bathing for the unemployed advocated by them, have for long years formed part of the "progressive" ticket.

The fact that in society to-day there exists underfed school children and necessitous mothers is part of the indictment against capitalism and a strong reason for revolutionary action and not reform. Tinkering with the effects of the system is of no avail. The cause of poverty in the midst of plenty is to be found in the private ownership of the means of life. Social ownership can alone effect the change. And this the Labour Party does not stand for.

During the war period case after case could be cited to show that the Labour men were nothing but capitalist hacks. To all students of politics a whole host of names will readily suggest itself. Coming to a more recent date we have the notorious case of Manchester's Lord Mayor, which is worth recording :

  Manchester's Labour Lord Mayor, Alderman Tom Fox, uttered a stern warning to a deputation of unemployed on Saturday. 

Vague threats of violence in the event of work not being forthcoming have been made. Such procedure was roundly condemned by Alderman Fox. "Thirty years ago," he frankly said, "I was one of you, using the same sort of talk, but it leads nowhere! 

It is time all this nonsense was knocked on the head. 

Suppose anything of this happened, then you would come up against authority, and that authority in this city is vested in myself for the time being, as well as in the police force. 

Then you are up against the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force—all in their full strength. There are a few of you. I know what would happen, and it is as well that you knew too. 

There would be an appeal to the Lord Mayor for order, and I am prepared to take action with all the energy I am capable of, and don't you forget it, my friends. I am the Lord Mayor, and I am bound to keep order, and as the Lord Mayor I would do it. Don't make any mistake about it. " —"Daily News," Dec. 1st, 1919.

So there you have it ''naked and unashamed." I, the representative of King Capital, will use all the forces of capitalism against you, the workers, if and when necessary. What think ye now, ye workers who voted Labour not understanding that Labourism is but another name for Capitalism ?

#    #    #    #

A meeting was held in December last at the Mansion House for the purpose of laying the foundation of a movement for linking together in active co-operation all bodies and organisations—religious, social, or industrial—which are striving to break down the barriers between class and class and to establish relations of mutual confidence between employers and employed. Notwithstanding the efforts of these enterprising people, I feel bound to add that they have a big job on hand.

Judging from the weighty words of wisdom which fell from the lips of the Bishop of Peterborough, we have great cause for thankfulness, my brethren, that our erring Christian friend has at last grasped a sublime truth. He said : "Industry was made for man and not man for industry. We have had too much of the soul-destroying competition of the past." Verily, we move.

Another gentleman of the cloth, the Rev. Father Plater, who evidently knew his fellow religionists well, stated that; "Religion was not praying into a top hat on Sunday morning with liberty to prey upon our neighbours the rest of the week." ("Daily News," December 10th. 1919.)

Why, oh why, my masters, is it now necessary, seeing that the world has been made safe for democracy, to form associations to "break down the barriers between class and class"? With wearying monotony throughout the last four years you have time and again told us that the war had accomplished this thing for you, and that the unity formed in the trenches would stand you in good stead in the days ahead.

No, sirs, you have been cherishing a delusion. It cannot be done. Look around you on every hand and you will see signs that there is an antagonism of interest between the two sections in the community— a class war—which can only be terminated by the abolition of classes in and through the institution of the Socialist Commonwealth.

The Scout

"Accumulated Experiences." (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the early days of the war, when all kinds of devices were being used to induce young men to enlist in the Army, Mr. Lloyd George used his famous rhetoric to assist the cause of his employers. We called attention at the time to many of his remarks in speeches urging young men of our class to join their comrades in eternity, but it may not be out of place here to recall some of his statements—just to keep their memory green !

When speaking in Wales on the 29th Sept., 1914, at a national Welsh Conference for the purpose of assisting in the formation of a Welsh Army Corps, he made the following remarks :

  The vast majority return from a war to tell the tale and they will have accumulated experiences which will illumine their lives for ever after. Most people's lives are dull, grey, and monotonous, and these men will come back with a fund of recollection to draw upon which should cheer and brighten their lives at the dreariest moment. . . . I am glad that the War Office are recognising the value of this national sentiment as a military asset. —"Manchester Guardian,'' 30.9.14.

We now have plenty of evidence of the "joys " those returned from the war have accumulated. Ask any of the returned soldiers how they would like to go through their war horrors again! And what was the nature of these experiences? They saw the heads of their chums blown off while standing beside them; their friends disemboweled by murderous iron splinters. They experienced the horrors of battle, with the nerve strain and tension of going "over the top," the verminous sleeping places, the months of wallowing in mud and water to the hips in the depth of winter, the lack of food and the ravages of disease, the lying, perhaps for days, stricken things on the shell-swept field, the ever-present spectre of Death.

Many have lost their reason on account of the experiences they have gone through. Many more have been converted into permanent wrecks. Many of those who returned home found homes that had been wrecked by their thankless rulers in their absence.

What a fund of recollections to brighten their lives at the dreariest moment !

The "vast majority" who were to return turned out to be a rather small "vast majority." According to the latest figures (and we may be sure it is an under-estimation), nearly a million British soldiers were killed, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands totally or partially disabled for life. A walk through the streets of any town will provide the observer with numerous illustrations of the havoc wrought by the war that, according to Lloyd George, was to accumulate experiences that would illumine lives for ever after. The blinded or limbless soldier can have little but bitterness in his heart for the rest of his life.

In spite of all the cant and humbug of early war days the war veteran has returned to working conditions even worse than obtained formerly. While the papers are prating about "booms" in the cotton, woollen, boot and shoe, and other industries, and labour leaders are urging workers to greater efforts in production, ex-soldiers are scouring the country in vain for the elusive job.

Earl Haig (who is not one of them) has been appealing to employers all over the country on behalf of the thousands of ex-soldiers unemployed. Speaking at Leeds the other day he made following remarks:

  It was impossible to suggest that the nation's debt had been discharged while men who had fought in the desperate battles at Cambrai, Ypres, and Arras were seeking employment and finding none. They were asking some small share in the prosperity which their efforts had made possible. —"Daily News," 24.1.1920.

The callous indifference to the claims of the soldiers shows once again the hollowness and fraudulent nature of capitalist promises. The general attitude of the masters was fittingly illustrated by the remarks of Judge Cluer last year in a case where an ex-soldier (five years in the Army and thrice wounded), his wife, and three children were evicted from their home and forced into the workhouse. The following quotation was taken from the "Daily Chronicle," 16.7.19.

The Solicitor : But this is the case of a hero and his family. He has sacrificed everything for his country. To be turned into the street to go into the workhouse is a scandal. He is entitled to special consideration.
Judge Cluer : He is entitled to the same consideration as anybody else. The reasons given for wanting possession are good. 

At the present moment a wail is going up about a wave of "robbery with violence" that is sweeping the country. Referring to this Sir Robert Wallace (Chairman of the London Sessions) said:

  It is sad to see the enormous number of men in Khaki, or recently demobilised, in the dock, but there was a carelessness about property in campaign life. Habits which we may call military but not wicked have unfortunately transplanted themselves into civil life, and this won't do. —"Daily Sketch," 22,1.1920.

Aha ! there is an awkward side to war experiences for the capitalists; the "accumulated experiences" are apt to lead to capitalist discomfort. The violation of working-class lives is a detail, but heaven forbid that private property should be violated— in civil life.

Numberless are the cases of returned soldiers evicted from their homes. The pensions to the disabled and the bereaved are an insult to the memory of the living and the dead, and a crushing illustration of the parsimony and cold-blooded selfishness of the worst slave-owners known to history. Out of the many instances that spring to the writer's memory the following will suffice for illustration :

  The pathetic circumstances of a soldier's widow, with nine children, who had to apply for out relief in consequence of a refusal by the Ministry of Pensions to allow her more than 6s. 10d. a week was strongly commented on at the East Preston (Sussex) Guardians yesterday.  —"Daily News," 3.9.19.

To such a state as this has the "national sentiment as a military asset" brought numbers of our fellow workers. How some of us must love Lloyd George and his tribe may easily be imagined!

As to the "accumulated experiences which will illumine their lives for ever after," the following extracts will provide a perfectly fitting commentary :

  Reverting to influences which might help crime, the commissioner (Sir Nevil Macready) said men had taken life lightly and been encouraged to do so. It could not be expected that every individual would get back to a normal state of mind immediately. —"Daily News," 24.1.20.

The same paper, same date, referring to a meeting of Birmingham magistrates to discuss after-the-war crime, stated :

  It is largely a post-war problem. The experiences which men have gone through in the last five years have left a mental disturbance that has led to wrongdoing.

The experiences of the war wrecked many a working-class home, and the experiences of "peace" are extending the havoc further. It is small wonder that those who have been taught for years to spread ruin and destruction everywhere, whose lives were held cheap and who were brought to hold the lives of others equally cheap, should carry these ideas into civil life. The thorn in the side of our rulers is, however, that they are being to some extent hoist with their own petard. Working men were strenuously urged to ruin and destroy during the war, and consequently they have a tendency to ignore the glorious and eternal rights of private property now that they have returned to their ordinary occupation of producing wealth for idlers to enjoy.

However, Lloyd George was somewhere near the mark. Working men have "accumulated
experiences" during the war which, along with other experiences which will help them to an understanding of their wage-slave position, and in due course they will take measures to ensure
 a cheering and brightening of their lives by abolishing capitalism and introducing Socialism
 from the ruins.

Gilmac.

A Brief Exposition of Socialist Theory. (Continued.) (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The example of the difference of the relations between men getting their livelihood by means of simple instruments of labour (typified by the threshing flail) and those producing their sustenance by means of more advanced means of production (typified by the threshing machine) which we have given by no means exhausts the field. Just as the social structure consists of much more than these primary and personal relations, so much more in the social life takes shape from the character of the instruments of labour and the methods in which they are used. Man stands not only in relations with his fellow men, but also with the world about him, and as far as these relations are within society they have their base in the conditions of wealth production.

In the classic age of the flail, for instance, the general means of producing wealth were about on a par with that implement. It was the day of the windmill, the spinning wheel and distaff, and the primitive loom. In the towns the smith's hammer rang out, without a rival in the production of ferrous ware. Everywhere was handwork, everywhere tools. Machinery, if not unknown, was of so little importance as to have practically no influence upon the method of production.

In such conditions as this what was the relation of men toward the world ? We have already seen that the instruments of labour in general belonged to those who operated them. Among the artizans of the towns, possibly, were many exceptions, but the lower we descend in the scale of the development of the instruments of labour, the more do we find the energies of the workers occupied in the production of the primary necessaries, food, shelter, and clothing. Therefore, in the period of which we are speaking, the production of these things were the predominating industries, and it was the general conditions prevailing in these industries which determined the general social relations.

It was not, therefore, the handicraft of the towns which determined the social form, but the economic conditions of rural industries.

Ignoring, then, the seeming contradictions of the towns, where goods were certainly produced for sale, let us turn to the countryside.

The worker of the Middle Ages, owning the simple means by which he produced his living, had an outlook upon the world entirely different from that of the modern worker. This difference commenced with his relation to the product of his toil. His very object was different when he took his instruments of labour in hand. The modern worker starts out to produced wealth which shall be the property of the owner of the implements he operates, but the feudal worker, owning the tools with which he worked, laboured to produce wealth for himself. Hence while the modern worker realises that his function in life, and therefore the reason he is permitted to live, is to work, the mediaeval worker could not take this view of himself and his relation to the world.

He worked to live. The product of his labour was a different thing at the moment of its production, from the product of the toil of his present-day prototype. The latter, producing wealth which, on production, belongs to someone else, necessarily produces what that other requires, and he cannot escape the conviction that he is only permitted to work (and therefore to live) in order to produce it. The feudal worker, on the other band, producing wealth for himself, produced those things which he required to satisfy his own needs, hence he saw himself only working to live, and took an opposite view of his place in the world to that of the wage worker of our present system.

A. E. Jacomb

(To be Continued.)

Mr. Clynes' Call For "Trust." (1920)

Editorial from the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

How far the "labour leaders" have to depend upon the sheep-like following of the rank and file for their "power" and their "reputation," instead of upon any particular ability or genius of their own, is shown when that following give any signs of ignoring their "leaders." An instance has occurred lately that has been used by one of the most prominent of these "leaders" as a lesson for their sheep, pointing the moral of unquestioning obedience and docile following.

This is the case of the Ironmoulders' strike for an increase of wages. Contrary to the usual custom the men, while sending a deputation to meet and negotiate with the employers, insisted that no terms should be accepted until they had been submitted to a ballot-vote of the rank and file. As it is this rank and file and not the leaders, who have to bear the cost and suffering of the struggle, it would appear obvious sense that they should decide the acceptance or rejection of any terms offered. But this means the taking away from the "leaders" of the very thing that gives them importance in the employers' eyes, namely, the power to negotiate and settle the terms to be accepted, without any reference to the rank and file.

The fact that the moulders lost their strike is used by Mr. Clynes, M.P., as an argument against the moulders' method of action, and he makes some curious statements that, quite unintentionally, of course, contradicts the argument he puts forward. He says;

  The leaders had many opportunities of understanding the material and moral factors which were operating against the workmen. And the men in the main were not able to appreciate the difficulties of their leaders, or understand the strength of their employers. 

Coming from such a source this is a striking condemnation of the "leaders" and their actions. Why did not the "leaders" explain the "material and moral factors" operating against the men? What were the "difficulties" in front of them? And why—if they knew, did not they explain "the strength of the employers" to the men ?

Mr. Clynes, of course, dares not answer such questions, simple though they are. Either he is bluffing in stating that the "leaders" knew these things, or the latter were deliberately swindling the men by withholding such important information.

Further on Mr. Clynes makes another assertion to support his tottering case :

  Leaders of experience should be viewed, not only as trustworthy, but as extremely anxious for their own credit to secure for their following the best possible terms. (Italics ours.)

At once the question arises: Why? In the columns of the Socialist Standard will be found hundreds of instances showing that the only "trustworthiness" of the "labour leaders" was for the employers' interest and against that of the men. But even if Mr. Clynes' claim were true it would have no weight. The men, who have to bear the brunt of the fight, should decide, not the "leaders," whose comfortable position remains intact.

Further to support his case Mr. Clynes refers to the railwaymen's struggle and states :

  . . . workmen would not, I believe, have their interests endangered by giving powers to their representatives similar to those exercised by the leaders who recently acted for the railway servants. 

It is unlikely that the railwaymen would have done better by balloting on the terms their so-called leaders secured. It is just possible that they might have done worse. It is difficult to see how they could have done worse, but they had far better run the "risk" than allow themselves to be pawns in the game played by their "leaders" and the employers. And after all, what results did their "leaders" obtain?

The Government offer contained two essential points, the rest being details of application. The first was that the average wage of each grade should be taken as the basis for calculating the increased percentages. The second was the establishment of a sliding scale of wages dependent upon the cost of living. This point has a significance worthy of the workers' notice.

Labour "leaders," including, of course, Mr. Clynes, have been urging the workers to "produce more" on the plea that they, the workers, can obtain a larger share of wealth. We have exposed this lie on several occasions. Now comes the Government with official support of our exposure, and proof of the fraudulent character of these "trustworthy" henchmen of the masters.

If, as a result of increased production (or any other cause) prices should fall, then, instead of having a greater share of the products, the railwaymen will have their wages reduced so that they will obtain only about the same quantity of products as before, though they will have the consolation of seeing the masters' profits rising faster than before. What a victory for the "trustworthy leaders"!

Nor is this the whole case. According to reports the majority of the delegates to the Special Delegate Meeting called to consider this offer were instructed by their constituents to reject these terms. The fact that, at first, they did reject them is evidence of the correctness of the reports. On the second presentation, however, they accepted the terms embodying these two essential points. Why? Perhaps a reference to a previous action may supply the answer.

When a Delegate Meeting in March, 1919, threatened to call a strike of railwaymen Mr. J. H. Thomas, M.P., the General Secretary, told the delegates he would "stump the country to turn the men against them." His threat succeeded. Apparently he still has a large following among the rank and file. Did he threaten the delegates this time ? It ii well known that he strongly favoured the acceptance of the Government's terms, and would, therefore, be ready to do all he could to persuade the men to adopt them. This shows how "trustworthy" he is— for the Government. We would like to ask him this question : "How long was he in possession of the Government's terms before he submitted them to the delegates?" If they were not submitted as soon as they were obtained may we ask, why not?

The answers should at least be interesting. 

When Mr. Clynes pleads with the men to retain the system of "authorised and trusted delegation," he fails to produce a single argument to support so rotten a system. The moulders lost their strike, but it was the only method open to them to test the resistance the masters were prepared to make. "Trusted delegates" could not have told them this. The railwaymen, who accepted the theory of "trusted delegation," have lost even worse than the moulders, because they have accepted the vicious principle that they must make no attempt to alter their standard of living, no matter how much the methods of wealth production may improve.

Mr. Clynes' pleading for continued "trust" in himself and his fellow labour misleaders, is shown by this simple analysis to be a boomerang that returns on himself, and knocks down the case he puts before us.

An Aspect of Socialism. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The aim of the Socialist Party is to make Socialists ! That is a truism so obvious that it would seem that only a platitudinarian would think it worth his while to repeat it. But the fact is that this truism—perhaps because it is so obvious—is sometimes lost sight of by many whose theory and practice of the principles of Socialism are beyond dispute.

Socialism has two aspects, one of which may be called the "present," and the other the "future" aspect, and because of the presence of these two aspects, a certain amount of confusion often occurs.

The "present" aspect of Socialism may be defined as those activities, exercised by the men and women who have realised their position as wage-slaves, and who have, therefore, a desire for a system of society wherein they shall be economically free, which have for their object the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth. The "future" aspect of Socialism comprises all the manifold activities which will be possible when the new social system—Socialism—has been established.

Many Socialists forget, if they have ever known, that Socialism is not an end in itself, but the means to a fuller and more richly endowed way of life. No manifestation of life, whether it be economic or political, artistic or philosophical, is or can be an end in itself. Life moves on to a higher or lower plane, aided or hindered, as the case may be, by the activities of its agents, who, in their turn, are acted upon, and re-act upon, the eternal and unresting forces of nature.

The aim of the Socialist Party is to make Socialists! How, then, shall we, who have torn the veil of illusion from our modern social system and seen the naked body of Capitalism in all its hideous deformity, use our knowledge to bring to our way of thinking the men and women of the working class, without whose assistance our ultimate object is unattainable? We must show that capitalism has outlasted its usefulness; must emphasise and criticise the evils which are now the inevitable consequence of its continuance; we must point out that capitalism as a social force has played its part and that the time is ripe for the next stage in the evolution of society to be born.

Capitalism is in its death-throes, but its time in dying will be determined by the efforts of the working class as a whole to hasten its demise. Even the question as to whether or not the death-night of Capitalism will herald the dawn of the Socialist Commonwealth depends upon the growth of the political and economic intelligence of the workers.

The first aspect of Socialism, the "present" aspect, is more applicable to actual members of the Socialist Party. This can, therefore, be left for the time being. The writer will, perhaps, revert to it in a future article.

The second aspect, the "future" aspect, is particularly important with regard to the making of Socialists. Many people, while sympathetic to the idea of Socialism, hesitate to join up with the Socialist Party because they are unable to visualise what conditions of life, other than the material, will obtain when the old system of Capitalism has passed and the new system of Socialism has taken its place. Many people consider, for instance, that under a system where the necessities and comforts of life are assured to everyone, society will lapse into a state of apathy and negligence. They cannot understand that, where people work for use and not for profit, the better the work done by the individual, the greater the benefit bestowed upon the society of which the better worker is a unit. The workers under the Socialist regime will work for themselves as a collective body and not, as now, for a comparatively few social parasites, who by reason of their class position as capitalists as against the workers' position as wage-slaves, hold in their hands the power of dealing with the very lives of the majority of the community, not as they will, but as the fluctuations of economic circumstance may force them to.

Again, many sympathisers with Socialism and Socialists, who have a smattering of artistic knowledge and appreciation—in most cases only a very minute smattering is possible to a member of the working class—seem obsessed with the idea that the advent of Socialism would mean the cessation of all artistic activities. Actually, the advent of Socialism would have the opposite effect. At present the working-class boy who happens to show any aptitude for literature or art very soon learns that such things are not for him. He learns that they are the prerogative of those people whom he is taught to consider as his "betters." Without help or encouragement, any desire he may have to become a writer or a composer quickly dies of inanition—before it has even had time to try its wings. Moreover, when it is considered that, generally speaking, a long and costly training is necessary in order to develop the literary and artistic faculties, it can be seen how improbable it is for a boy, say of 14 years or younger, who is compelled on leaving school to find work as an errand- or office-boy, or in some suchlike inane and enervating capacity, ever to know the joy of creating a great work in the realm of literature or art. He is soon too busy trying to discover how to earn a few more shillings a week to trouble himself about such unremunerative things as books, or painting, or musical notation.

Under Socialism, which we who are Socialists conceive as an intelligent and ordered system of society, the youthful mind would be encouraged to develop along the lines most in accordance with its particular receptivity. There would be no need for the youth of either sex to stampede, immediately on leaving school, to the factory or office door. They would have advantages similar to those now enjoyed by the children of the wealthy class, and it is not too much to say, I think, keeping in mind our knowledge of the modern university and college product, that the children of the working class would far outstrip, in the way of science, art and literature, the individuals who now leave their universities and colleges, in the majority of cases, with little else to show for their training than an "Oxford accent" and an unbounded conceit.

Socialism would mean the opening to the youth of the working class of a world undreamt of by them at present. To those members of the working class who cavil at Socialism because they fear that the downfall of Capitalism would mean the downfall of what they consider "art" and "literature," I would ask, "What are art and literature to you? What really do you know or care about the great artistic products of the world ? You have neither the time, nor the inclination, nor the means, to make a study of such things. Your business is to work in order to get the wherewithal to live. Leave such things to your masters, so long as you are content to have masters."

Even if the destruction of Capitalism meant the destruction of all known art and literature, what then? If the men and women of the working class are incapable of building a more lofty tower of art than any that has yet been erected, they are not worthy to occupy the somewhat stunted edifice which by much toil and suffering has grown to what it is. The writer, however, is confident that, given the opportunity that Socialism would give to every member of the community, art and science would advance in an irresistible fashion far beyond anything yet known. Men, take them all an all, do not desire to rise superior in their activities to the activities manifested by the men preceding them.

One word more to those who, although themselves members of the working class, have such a poor opinion of the potentialities of their fellows. Why not change your tactics? Why not employ the powers you possess in helping to found a state of affairs wherein the members of the working class—your own class— shall have a chance of showing what they can do? Understand Socialism. Organise for Socialism. Propagate Socialism. Work for Socialism. Do not worry so much about the future. The future, you may be assured, will be quite safe in the hands of an intelligent democracy. We ask for the co-operation of all who accept the principles of Socialism, so that when the inevitable disintegration of Capitalism takes place, we, the workers as a whole, shall be ready, equipped for any emergency, to enter into the new world to be won.

F. J. Webb

The Materialist Conception of History. by Frederick Engels. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Translated for "The Proletarian" by Prof. J. I. Cheskis, of the University of Michigan.

[The letter printed below is interesting to students of Socialism as one of the instances that show how false is the charge of the superior persons of the Labour Party and the I.L.P., of the "dogmatism" of Marx and Engels. It should also be remembered that a fight was being waged at the time the letter was written between the followers of Marx and the Anarchists of Germany, in which the latter were attempting to stretch some of the phrases of Marx and Engels on the Class War into a support of street fighting and barricades as the essential method of working-class emancipation. Similar tales are sometimes told in this country, and it is a significant fact that every new translation of Marx's and Engels' writings shows still further the falsity of these tales, and how all through their propaganda it was the capture of political power they insisted upon, as the essential that the working class must rely upon for their escape from slavery.—Ed. Com., "S.S."] 

In the course of a discussion that followed a public lecture, given at a seminary, a student asked Engels to give him precise explanations of the two following points:

1. To what extent do economic conditions act as a causative influence ?
2. What part is played by the race and by the individual according to the "historical materialism" of Marx and Engels ?

Engels replied:

London. Jan. 25, 1895. 

122 Regents Park Road, N.W. 

Dear Sir,—Following is the reply to your two questions :

1. The economic conditions, which we consider as the determinative basis in the history of society, we understand to be the manner in which men in a given society produce their means of subsistence and the ways in which they effect the exchange of products among themselves (this as long as division of labour exists). The entire technique of production and transportation is here included. According to our conception this technique determines the mode of exchange, of distribution of products, and—after the disintegration of the tribal system—the division of society into classes, the conditions of master and slave, of State, of politics, law, etc. Further, among the economic conditions under which these phenomena obtain, must be included the geographical environment, and also the actual remains of former phases of economic evolution which often persisted by force of tradition, inertia, or because of circumstances which surrounds that form of society.

Even if, as you say, technique largely depends on the conditions of science, yet, in a greater measure, does the latter depend on the conditions of and the need for technique. If society is in the need of the development of a certain technique, this helps science more than ten universities. The science of hydrostatics was the sole result of the need that Italy felt in the 16th and 17th centuries of controlling the course of her torrents in the mountains. We began to understand the science of electricity only when we discovered its practical application. In Germany, however, they have become accustomed to treat the history of science as though it had fallen out of the sky.

2. We hold, that in the final analysis, economic conditions constitute the determinative factor in historical evolution. Here, therefore, we must hold in view two points:

(A). That the political, juridical, philosophical, religious, literary, artistic, etc. evolutions are based on the economic evolution. They all re-act upon each other and upon the economic basis. It does not mean that the economic factor is the sole active cause and all the others merely passive effects. But the whole situation presents a mutual interaction among the various forces on the basis of economic necessity, which latter force ultimately prevails. The State, for instance, exerts an influence by means of protective tariffs, free exchange, good or bad revenue laws; and even the boundless stupidity and impotence of the German petty Bourgeoisie—which grew out of Germany's economic misery during the period from 1648 to 1830, and which first manifested itself in piety, then in sentimentality and fawning servility before the nobles and princes— was not without its economic consequences. It was one of the greatest obstacles to the renaissance and was not shaken off until the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars made the economic wretchedness unbearable. History is not as some would imagine for the sake of their greater convenience, an automatic effect of the economic situation, but men themselves make their own history. Certain it is, however, that men act in accordance with the prevailing conditions that dominate their field of action. And among these the economic circumstances, however much influenced by political and ideological forces, are always of chief importance. In the final reckoning they constitute the decisive factor and form the golden thread which guides the student to the correct, all-comprehensive, understanding of the subject.

(B). Men make their own history, but not as the result of a general volition nor in accordance with some general plan,—not even in a given limited social group. Men's aspirations oppose each other. Out of this circumstance, in every similar group, arises an imperative need whose chance concomitant or accidentality is at once the complement and the form of its manifestation. The need or necessity which here underlies every chance appearance is in the end the economic necessity. The so-called great man appears. But the fact that it happens to be a certain great man, appearing at a certain time and at a certain given place, is simply mere chance. But if we eliminate him there arises an immediate demand for a substitute, and this substitute in time found, tant bien que mal. That Napoleon became a military dictator —of which the French republic, exhausted by civil wars, stood in need—was merest chance ; but that in the event of Napoleon's non-appearance there would have been another to occupy his place is proven by the fact that in every instance in which there was such a need the man was found—Caesar, Augustus, Cromwell, etc. If it happened to be Marx who discovered the law of historical materialism, yet Thierry, Mignet, Guizot, who up to 1850 were writing English histories, proves that such a notion already existed, and the discovery of the same idea by Morgan further proves that the times were ripe for such an event and the discovery was an imperative need.

And so it is with every other true or apparent accidentality in history. The farther the field that we may be examining recedes from the economic, and the nearer it approaches the merely abstract ideologic, the more we shall find—in its evolution—such accidentalities appearing on the scene, and the more does the curve of its evolution fluctuate. If one should attempt, however, to trace the axis of this curve, one should find that the longer the time period observed and the larger the field thus treated, the more nearly does this axis run parallel to the axis of the economic evolution.

In Germany the great hindrance to a true understanding of these things lies in the inexcusable neglect of this subject by the writers of economic history. It is so difficult to rid oneself of the historical conceptions inculcated by schools, and still more difficult to collect the necessary materials. Who, for example, has read old J. V. Julich, who includes in his dry collections so many explanations of various political phenomena!

Moreover, it seems to me the beautiful example given us by Marx in his "Eighteenth Brumaire" furnishes a sufficient answer to your questions—the more so because it is a practical illustration. And I believe myself to have touched upon those points in "Anti-Duehring," I., chapters 9-11, II., chapters 2-4, and III., chapter 1, and also in the introduction and in the last chapter of "Feuerbach."

I would ask you not to pass judgment on this letter, but to consider only the thoughts it conveys. I am sorry I have not the time to write you with that exactness I should employ when writing for the public.

Kindly give my regards to Mr. _____ and thank him for the . . . which has given me much pleasure.

With profound respect,

Most devotedly yours,

F. Engels.

Blogger's Note:

See also 'The Materialist Conception of
 History' (1934)

On Abstractions. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The majority of us when children at school were told that fable, wrongly attributed to Aesop, relating to the tragedy (from the principal character's point of view) of the dog who dropped, when crossing a stream, the bone he was carrying in order to snatch at the one he saw mirrored in the water. The moral our teachers impressed upon us was that we should not forsake the substance for the shadow.

Yet, curious paradox, we find upon looking around to-day that it is mainly because of toe workers' disregard for the lessons of the fable that Capitalism has not yet fallen. True, the analogy is not quite good, since the working class have not yet held the material bone in their mouth, but though we show how near their grasp it is, they still pursue shadows, placing their trust in specious promises, which rarely materialise, and bring them no relief when they do.

I have seen men pale and wan with hunger and deprivation fling their ragged caps in the air and cheer a royalty riding by, because they believed that to worship a royal fetish and to suffer the pangs of hunger were quite the usual things to do. And thereto lies the whole kernel of working-class misery.

A few years back workers in their millions sprang forth at the first call of the capitalist class to go and fight the workers of another nation. Yet in his heart of hearts scarcely a man of them, if he dared to ask himself, would have said he had a home worth fighting for or a possession to defend. But because of something which he knows by the name of “Patriotism," but which he cannot truthfully define, he donned khaki or field-grey and learned to slaughter his fellows without thinking or troubling to understand the why and the wherefore.

One will often hear a workman prate of his English nationality and consequent "freedom." A curious definition of his freedom, however, impressed itself upon me as I was passing a place where building was in progress. It was after dark, and I saw a long line of human figures pressing against a barrier of wood which separated the area being built upon from the street. I was quite at a loss to account for them and lingered a moment to ascertain, when all at once from somewhere in the rear a shrill whistle blew, and the men, leaping the barrier (that is, the more active among them) dispersed in all directions as quickly as they could. And then I understood! These “freeman,” although it had for some time been too dark to continue to work were forced to remain imprisoned behind a frail barrier until released by the blast of a whistle! It struck me then that humiliation and freedom are synonymous.

But, of course, the men themselves would not have seen the irony of the situation, in fact, if one had suggested to them that a wooden whistle is the measure of their freedom, and that their boasted liberty is a delusion, abuse, and possibly violence, would have been burled at him.

Another pet abstraction of the occidental proletariat, particularly of this country, is “Democracy.” With pride in his voice and dilated chest the average man will tell you that “this is a democratic country,” and, what is more tragic, will believe it, too! But when you point out to him that under autocracies the working class are robbed, and that, be a country nominally ruled by a king, shah, kaiser, or president, poverty and hardship is the lot of the working class all the world over, he will go on worshipping some other abstract fetish rather than come down to the solid facts of hie slave position and hopeless outlook under the present system.

The poor old dog will not grip the solid bone of class consciousness, and the capitalist class know this, hence gods, kings, presidents, motherlands, liberty, patriotism, are all used in turn to satiate the proletarian appetite for abstractions rather than material welfare.

But the Socialist does not despair. He knows that all these things will fail the capitalists in the end, and that his false gods and clay-footed idols will come tumbling about his ears when the slow-witted dog “Proletariat” has learned his lesson and safely crossed the stream to enjoy that which has been denied him so long.

Stanley H. Steele

Government by Labour. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

A question which has recently aroused considerable controversy is, "Can Labour Govern?"

Socialists are not so much concerned with the question of whether Labour can govern as whether it should, or, to put it in a better way, whether Labour need govern. And on examination of the facts the only possible conclusion we can arrive at is that it need not—and should not.

It is significant that neither of those who have hitherto contributed to the discussion have defined their terms. In this they are quite consistent with their past record. For when apologists of capitalism and their henchmen—the self-styled "labour leaders"—are discussing a given subject, they never attempt to define the terms which they use; the only apparent reason for this is that they know that to do so would be to remove the blinkers from the eyes of those to whom they are appealing.

However, I will rectify the omission.

The word "Govern" means (according to Blackie's "Concise English Dictionary"): "To direct and control; to regulate by authority; to keep within the limits prescribed by law or a sovereign will; to influence; to direct; to restrain; to keep in due subjection; GRAM., to cause to be in a particular case, or to require a particular case.—v.i. To exercise authority."

The italics are mine.

There is no need to worry over the question: "Who does Churchill (who started the controversy) and his gang want to govern?" We all know that. But seeing that the spokesmen of the Labour Party are all so greatly concerned to maintain their ability and their right to govern (when they get the chance) it is natural to ask "Who is it that the Labour Party wish to 'keep in subjection?'" Seeing that the Labour Party, both officially and in the utterances of its representatives, has no conception of politics other than the capitalist view, and seeing, further, that there is no class beneath the working class to be oppressed, obviously it can only be the workers themselves that the Labour Party desires to "keep in due subjection."

Now, in asserting that Labour need not govern it is necessary to submit an alternative. That alternative is Administration.

But before describing this let us state the facts referred to above. They have been already stated numberless times, but it is essential that they be restated, even to the point of weariness, until such time as the workers take the action shown to be necessary by these facts.

1. Society is, broadly speaking, divided into two classes, the slave class and the slave-owning class.
2. Between these two classes there is a conflict of interests—centred around the sale and purchase of labour-power—which can be ended only by the abolition of the slave-owners, i.e., the capitalist class.
3. No one but the slaves themselves can abolish the capitalist class, and so doing achieve the freedom of the workers.
4. As the slave class, i.e., the working class, is the last class to be emancipated, there is no other class to be exploited, hence the need for government automatically disappears. 

Now for our alternative proposal—Administration.

The same dictionary says that to administer is "to manage or conduct as chief agent . . . " and states that the word is derived from the Latin ministro, to serve.

The difference, then, between Administration and Government is that the first serves the people and the other represses them. A good example of Administration is to be found in the Constitution of the S.P.G.B.

The control of the affairs of the Party is vested entirely in the membership of the Party. We have certain officials who are responsible for the execution of the instructions given them by the Party. If they fail in this work, or do it to an unsatisfactory manner, they can be removed from office at any time the Party thinks fit.

Apply this principle to the affairs of society, and the point of this article is perceptible at once. While we do not dispute the ability of the master class to govern, we do affirm that they cannot administer, for such a function must necessarily be performed in the interests of the workers, and hence can only be carried out by the workers themselves.

It is self-evident—in view of the state of affairs in "pre-war" times, of the Sidney Street fiasco, of the innumerable war scandals, of the gambles of Mesopotamia and Gallipoli, and the post-war position in which society is plunged, that the real Administration can be born only when the proletariat, having seized political power, use it for the purpose of making the means of production the common property of the whole of society, and proceed to administer them for the common welfare of all. Then the need for the State, for government—"Labour" or otherwise—and the "keeping in due subjection," will vanish, and mankind will at last be free.

Hutch.

Practical politics. (1920)

From the February 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists have often been told that they are not practical, that their ideas are of a visionary character, and that they lack knowledge of political affairs. Let us see how far this stock argument of the "anti" is correct.

In the sixth clause of its Declaration of Principles the Socialist Party states: " . . . the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers . . . " That is to say that Parliament, which passes the laws, the Cabinet, which frames them, the officials at Whitehall and elsewhere who execute them by giving orders to generals and judges, who in turn direct soldiers and policemen, all have one common object, which is to 

PROTECT PROPERTY!

We see this illustrated nearly every day of our lives. Take up any paper and you will find how this or that unfortunate member of the working class has been run in for taking, by "direct action," something which did not "belong" to him. Let any considerable body of workers strike, and immediately troops are despatched to the scene of action. Why? Because strikes mean hunger, which in turn leads to attacks on property. Finally, let any foreign group of capitalists threaten "our" trade, "our" empire, or "our" country, and forthwith the same troops are sent, not by the hundred or thousand, but by the million, to defend that which, to "our" masters, is dearer than our lives, i.e.,

THEIR PROPERTY.

And this property is all the product of the workers' labour. Whether it be acres of land, picks or ploughs, ships or railroads, factories or machines, shops or goods for sale, all are taken from the workers, all are owned and controlled by the master class for the purpose of wringing still more wealth from the sons and daughters of toil.

Is there anything fanciful or far-fetched about this statement? Does it not rather reek of reality at every turn? Let us, then, proceed to examine the following:

"The working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government . . . in order that this machinery . . . may be converted . . . into the agent of emancipation . . . "

This is the Socialist policy in a nutshell.

In the first place the workers are accustomed to organising for defence. Trade unions to-day comprise something like a quarter of the adult population. In fact, the amount of organisation existing is worthy of a better cause. We suggest that a change in tactics from mere defence (varied by surrender on important occasions) to a vigorous attack is necessary. And the proper place to deliver an attack is against the enemy's weakest spot—the ballot box. It is not enough to strike—the bosses can sack you and starve you! It is not WAR to start a little street-corner insurrection, in which only the workers' blood is shed and a capitalist can only get hurt by accident! These, of all policies, are the least practicable. 

But

SEIZE THE POLITICAL MACHINE!

That is the source of the masters' strength. And it is to control that for which they most need your support! It is for that they tell you all kinds of lies, make all kinds of false promises, and employ the most cunning scoundrels the country holds. Don't be deceived by the fact that a vote is simply a piece of paper. So is a bank note or a police summons! But behind the paper is the power! Capitalists are practical men; they don't ask you to vote for fun. They know that when the workers cease to vote for them and send to Parliament, instead, the representatives of a revolutionary class, the game will be up. It will be the turn of the "respectable people" to turn rebel—if they have the guts. The worst they are likely to achieve, however, is to bribe a few fools to do their dirty work for them; but the machinery of government includes the armed forces of the nation. The workers supply the guns and all the equipment of the fighting forces, in addition to the personnel of the rank and file. All that is necessary, therefore, to control those forces is the organisation of the workers themselves

AS A CLASS

for that purpose. Is there anything impossible in that?

This organisation once established can only have one object, i.e., to abolish the monopoly of the wealth taken from the workers by the masters. It will convert into common property the means of production, i.e., land, factories, railways, etc., and thus impose upon everyone the necessity of work and the freedom of all to enjoy the fruits of their common labour. No one will be able to live on rent, interest, or dividends, a life of idleness. None, on the other hand, who are willing to work, will stagnate in the half-starved ranks of the unemployed. The organisation of the workers will proceed to control industry. Again we challenge contradiction when we assert that this is the only practical solution of the workers' problems.

The various parties of the master class—Tories, Unionists, Radicals, etc., have long ago established their privileges, and now spend their time in retaining them. This they do by interesting the workers in every piece of legislation, etc., which they, the masters, from time to time consider necessary. Taxes on imports, taxes on land, taxes on incomes, more efficient State control of this, that or the other; all these measures are dressed up

IN THE GUISE OF REFORMS

for the benefit of the workers in order to gull them into voting their masters into power. In opposition (so called) to these parties stands the alleged Labour Party (or hotch-potch of parties) which differs from them only in the fact that its programme of "reforms" is more "advanced"—that is to say, it is calculated to more thoroughly organise capitalism and deceive the workers. None of the Labour Party's proposals differ in this from the Single Tax and other "progressive" nostrums! Every measure proposed by non-Socialist parties reveals, when closely analysed, some other attempt on the part of some section of the masters to increase or protect their revenue in some way. In no case will it be found that the workers benefit in any way. Parties are the expression of interests. The "practical politician" will be hard put to dispute this. Turn for yourselves to history and see for example how the landed Conservatives struggled against the rising manufacturing Liberals. Where is the party of the workers?

It can only be a party which

FIGHTS THE MASTERS!

It cannt be a party, which, like the "Labour" Party, joined the Coalition of Capital when it saw jobs given away and only left it to get into a position to bargain for more! This sort of thing may be "practical" for job-hunters: it is of no use to revolutionary workers. The Socialist Party, therefore, wages war on all other parties, and calls upon the workers of this country to muster under its banner.

Eric Boden